| 1 |
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> .should ~arch packages with no maintainer really be moved to stable?* |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> (* assuming no other outside forces, like it's a dep of something else |
| 5 |
> that needs to go stable) |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I support stabilizing bug-free newer versions of maintainer-needed |
| 8 |
packages that already have stable versions. I'm not sure I'd extend |
| 9 |
that to stabilizing packages that have no stable versions already. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I see getting stable users on the ~arch version as a win-win since it |
| 12 |
means less maintenance of older version (without a maintainer), and |
| 13 |
will likely give the stable user a more stable experience in reality |
| 14 |
than what they already have. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Those benefits don't exist for a package that has no stable versions |
| 17 |
to begin with. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Rich |
Archives